Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company v. Golf Car Depot Holdings, LLC,...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4:24-CV-10090-GAYLES/SHAW-WILDER MESA UNDERWRITERS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. GOLF CAR DEPOT HOLDINGS, LLC, JANELLE L. GARBER, individually, DAVID R. GARBER, JR., individually, and DAVID R. GARBER, JR., as Guardian of the Person for JANELLE L. GARBER, Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Detra Shaw-Wilder (the “Report”). [ECF No. 54]. On March 12, 2025, Plaintiff Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company (“MUSIC”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 22]. On August 1, 2025, Defendants Janelle L. Garber and David R. Garber, Jr., individually and on Mrs. Garber’s behalf as guardian of her person (collectively, the “Garbers”), filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 37]. The Court referred the case to Judge Shaw- Wilder for a ruling on all pretrial non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters, including the Motions for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 43]. On January 5, 2026, Judge Shaw-Wilder issued her Report, recommending that MUSIC’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, and the Garbers’ Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. [ECF No. 54].

No party filed objections, and the Garbers filed a Notice of Non-Objection to the Report. [ECF No. 60].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Given that the parties have not objected to any portion of the Report, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Shaw-Wilder’s findings and conclusion that MUSIC’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted and that the Garbers’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.

CONCLUSION Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 54], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 22], is GRANTED; (3) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 37]; is DENIED. (4) This case is CLOSED. (5) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, final judgment shall be awarded by separate order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 5th day of February, 2026.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE